L
LoveBeingHuman:)
I don't think research rankings really parallel the degree to which a school makes good doctors
I don't know where you came from, but you're the best.Princeton
3 of the best doctors I've worked with went to Carribean (SGU). 1 went to Howard. Also worked with many excellent doctors from Western COMP. I work as a medical scribe in the ED btw, probably worked with over 40+ physicians across several hospitals.
Where you go for residency matters more than where you went for medical school.
3 of the best doctors I've worked with went to Carribean (SGU). 1 went to Howard. Also worked with many excellent doctors from Western COMP. I work as a medical scribe in the ED btw, probably worked with over 40+ physicians across several hospitals.
Where you go for residency matters more than where you went for medical school.
in case you haven't seen this before:Aside from doing well on Step 1 and in clinical rotations, what do you think are the most important things that contribute to getting into a good residency?
The worst doctor I ever worked with was a MD/PhD from one of the schools that frequently vies for the top position in the country. He literally couldn't diagnose a tension pneumothorax and was trying to order albuterol for a patient that was dying. One day I hope to go to his practice and present him with a golden medal for the worst physician I've ever had the displeasure of working with.
Princeton
Somebody missed the jokeHarvard
How does being a scribe allow one to evaluate who is and is not a good doctor? I’m genuinely curious3 of the best doctors I've worked with went to Carribean (SGU). 1 went to Howard. Also worked with many excellent doctors from Western COMP. I work as a medical scribe in the ED btw, probably worked with over 40+ physicians across several hospitals.
Where you go for residency matters more than where you went for medical school.
Princeton
Let's see... having eyes and ears and using those to observe what other people think about said doctor (including fellow doctors perhaps), outcomes for patients, how they talk to patients? This view that you have to be a medical student, resident or attending to evaluate another doctor is naive, if they have poor communication skills or show incompetence/deer in the headlights when put in critical roles it's easy to tell, you don't need an MD to see that.How does being a scribe allow one to evaluate who is and is not a good doctor? I’m genuinely curious
How does being a scribe allow one to evaluate who is and is not a good doctor? I’m genuinely curious
Right. According to that view, as a patient I shouldn't be able to tell if my doctor is competent or not.Let's see... having eyes and ears and using those to observe what other people think about said doctor (including fellow doctors perhaps), outcomes for patients, how they talk to patients? This view that you have to be a medical student, resident or attending to evaluate another doctor is naive, if they have poor communication skills or show incompetence/deer in the headlights when put in critical roles it's easy to tell, you don't need an MD to see that.
as a patient I shouldn't be able to tell if my doctor is competent or not.
I guess my experiences have been different then. I'm referring to doctors who openly treat you as if you're inferior, making "jokes" and not picking up on when they've gone too far. Pretty much a lack of communication skills. (P.S. not directly to me but when I've had to take older family members to the clinic)Most patients can't tell if their "doctor" is either a doctor or a nurse, let alone how competent they actually are. It's baffling really. I definitely agree that ancillary staff who spend lots of time in a hospital and around physicians can definitely know who is good and who isn't.
3 of the best doctors I've worked with went to Carribean (SGU). 1 went to Howard. Also worked with many excellent doctors from Western COMP. I work as a medical scribe in the ED btw, probably worked with over 40+ physicians across several hospitals.
Where you go for residency matters more than where you went for medical school.
Much, Much more
But to land a solid residency depends partly on where you went to medical school. Unless you're claiming there is zero correlation, which is not true.
MGH is an awesome place to be an internal medicine resident but matching there would depend on board scores, letters, clinical grades, research... and medical school graduated. There's a real and significant reason for the disadvantage faced by US DOs and IMGs for matching placements, and there are also intra-US MD variations that are taken into account even if they may be significantly minor in comparison.
Basically, where you go for residency depends in part on where you go for medical school which in turn depends in part on where you go for undergrad.
Basically, where you go for residency depends in part on where you go for medical school which in turn depends in part on where you go for undergrad.
But to land a solid residency depends partly on where you went to medical school. Unless you're claiming there is zero correlation, which is not true.
MGH is an awesome place to be an internal medicine resident but matching there would depend on board scores, letters, clinical grades, research... and medical school graduated. There's a real and significant reason for the disadvantage faced by US DOs and IMGs for matching placements, and there are also intra-US MD variations that are taken into account even if they may be significantly minor in comparison.
Basically, where you go for residency depends in part on where you go for medical school which in turn depends in part on where you go for undergrad.
With top stats in hand, it helps land a top residency if you went to a MD school that has a MSTP program because imho the residency program directors are more impressed and familiar with those schools. However, getting into one of those 40 med schools does not require coming from a notable undergrad. Many of those med schools are state schools which routinely provide preferred enrollment to their state's students who are coming from a variety of schools...ranging from nationally ranked to unknown outside their region.
But the issue is that residency requirements are so strict that every residency will train you to be a competent, good physician and that a more prestigious residency does NOT = better doctor. I will use general surgery as an example and one I've seen multiple surgeons use on this site before: the Mayo Clinic is a prestigious place to train and will land you very good academic jobs or fellowships if you want them, yet it is known that the residents there do not operate as much and lack operating skills due to the big name surgeons doing a lot of the cases. However, some smaller, less prestigious community programs produce grads that are extremely proficient surgeons that are excellent at what they do.
Becoming a great doctor is largely separate of the school or residency you go to and is a product of individual time and effort. Every school or residency will give you the tools to do so.
That is a far too simplistic view of how the interplay of factors works here and to the question asked, which medical school makes the best doctors
1) Do not confuse getting into a specialty with getting into a program. The more highly ranked medical schools may send more graduates to competitive specialties (derm, ortho, plastics, etc). However, that does not say anything about the ranking of the specific program/hospital in the specialty. It is the program/hospital in your chosen specialty that is much, much more important. This is what doctors want to know about other docs. And a program in one field at hospital X may be viewed much different than other specialty at the same hospital (ie Derm is good but Ortho sucks at Hospital X). So if your connection to a good medical school is good enough to get you into a bottom-third Orthod residency make you a better physician than a grad from a mid-tier medical school who gets into a highly rated IM residency? That is apples to oranges aint it?
2) About 50% of residency directors overall cite "graduate of a highly-regarded US medical school" as a factor of consideration, below some 20+ other factors
3) Additionally, it ranks medical school the same or below about 20 factors in importance for those directors who do cite it
4) The level of these factors will change dramatically across each specialty
5) Personally, I see that networking via the dean's letter or connections across faculty much, much more important than the school ranking. That is a clinical professor you have for your rotation may know, went to school, was in residency, professionally connection may know the PD or a doc in the specialty/program you want. Those letters carry great weight. The influence of small-group dynamics within residency selection is enormous
Yeah but what was his MCAT? What was his Orgo grade? Did he have over 200 shadowing hours?The worst doctor I ever worked with was a MD/PhD from one of the schools that frequently vies for the top position in the country. He literally couldn't diagnose a tension pneumothorax and was trying to order albuterol for a patient that was dying. One day I hope to go to his practice and present him with a golden medal for the worst physician I've ever had the displeasure of working with.
Clinical skills improve with research, and academic medical centers do groundbreaking research to make new discoveries and improve on prior principles
If research does advance and shape clinical skills,
I would completely disagree with the idea that clinical skills improve with research, unless you mean clinical skills in the context of the medical profession as a whole. You have to define what "better" means. Better at what? If you are uniquely talking about a physician that deals solely on one rare disorder or specializes in one certain surgical procedure then yeah the big, quaternary academic center program guy is "better." If you mean (again with the surgery analogy) the guy who has an incredibly low infection rate in the community who does a million appys a year then he would be considered "better." It's a moving target
Interesting, it seems AOA doesn't matter as much for ranking but does matter in deciding who to give interviews to.
Also varied a ton by specialtyInteresting, it seems AOA doesn't matter as much for ranking but does matter in deciding who to give interviews to.
I've seen this thrown around a lot, the PD ranking, but have never asked about it. Is there a link for that or no?Oh, on this note lets clarify something. The "school rank" that premeds use, especially that god-awful hospital marketing material from Useless Snooze and Wuss Report, or whatever its called, has nothing to do with the rank that PDs use. PD directors are much more likely to be concerned with the reputation of the specialty field or department of the medical school you come from or the general reputation of how hospital ready their graduates are, that research budget and the rest...
I've seen this thrown around a lot, the PD ranking, but have never asked about it. Is there a link for that or no?
Most patients can't tell if their "doctor" is either a doctor or a nurse, let alone how competent they actually are. It's baffling really. I definitely agree that ancillary staff who spend lots of time in a hospital and around physicians can definitely know who is good and who isn't.
Oh, on this note lets clarify something. The "school rank" that premeds use, especially that god-awful hospital marketing material from Useless Snooze and Wuss Report, or whatever its called, has nothing to do with the rank that PDs use. PD directors are much more likely to be concerned with the reputation of the specialty field or department of the medical school you come from or the general reputation of how hospital ready their graduates are, that research budget and the rest. Yes, there is a slight name/prestige advantage for residency selection but as I noted in a previous post, only about 1/2 of residency directors use this as a factor in selection and of those, it ranks at or below some 20 other factors. Lastly, let me also again emphasis that readers must understand the difference in the concept of choosing a specialty field versus getting into a specific program for that field.
The paper here is seriously, very seriously flawed for a number of reasons
1) The paper that you cite is a working paper and has not been peer-reviewed or accepted for publication.
NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been
peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies
official NBER publications
2) The paper is counting absolute numbers of doctors and prescriptions without taking into any account the ratio of various doctor type to populations interaction. That is, most patient interaction occurs with their "GP" (term which the authors use) and therefore get most prescriptions from GP and therefore GP write most perscriptions. They did not to standardize this measure with a rate of either per 100,000 population or as prescription written per rate of visits across doctor type.
3) Authors do not have any discussions on why "lower-tier" medical schools are more likely to have graduates go into FP/ IM than higher ranked schools, particularly DO which produce under 25% off all physicians in the nation, but now produce fully 50% of all new PCPs
4) The authors are economists with no background, understanding in how residency selection for item #3 works
Frankly, if I received this paper in a Public Health Policy class, I would have given it a C at best. It shows no indepth understanding of how/why/which type of physicians patients will see the most or the understanding of residency selection, particularly for DO, of while lower tiered schools tend to produce more PCP. Their use of the very out of date term "GP" is a good indicator of their lack of knowledge.
Interesting, it seems AOA doesn't matter as much for ranking but does matter in deciding who to give interviews to.
in case you haven't seen this before:
The worst doctor I ever worked with was a MD/PhD from one of the schools that frequently vies for the top position in the country. He literally couldn't diagnose a tension pneumothorax and was trying to order albuterol for a patient that was dying. One day I hope to go to his practice and present him with a golden medal for the worst physician I've ever had the displeasure of working with.
I think they mean gaps during your MD, not premedWhy is "lack of gaps in medical education" used as criteria? I'm non-traditional and it's been taking a while. Is this such a negative factor?